Sushi I sympathize with a lot of your perspective on industrial man but unfortunately humans are like chickens, we tend to be self-centered. In that sense we are behaving naturally. Demonstrably in our case being self-centered has major negative consequences for the planet but we also harbor at least the potential to apply rational correctives like reducing the population and relearning to live sustainably..

I do like to think that the science that allowed us to wipe out small pox was a positive development. Everything doesn't have to be doom and gloom.

Doesn't it Dingo?? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ate-changePlus all the links in my 4th tipping point thread. Do you really think the mostly ignorant and selfish masses are going to learn to live sustainably and reduce emissions enough in time to prevent catastrophic climate change leading to a mass extinction?Reducing emissions alone requires a major effort to change to all non-emission power, farming, shipping and the end of heavily mechanized AG, mining, distribution, and manufacturing. It has been said we can not build enough GenIV reactors in time, and they are the only safe waste using way to carry the load coal and fossil fuel power does now.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... CMP=twt_fdWe are on the road to the population crash no matter what we do. The road to extinction is only theoretically possible to stop within a decade.Most likely, the crash will bring surviving humanity back to medieval or stone age lives, then CAGW will finish the job for humans and most other species.The reason for industrialization in the first place was to satisfy the needs of overpopulation. People could not live agriculturally without ruining soils, and earlier the hunter gatherers killed off mega-fauna with the technology of the Folsum Point. Humans at every stage were too ignorant to think ahead enough, and see the consequences of their actions in "seven generations", like they should have. Intelligent, strong bands of people who could live sustainably were too nice, and did not destroy all the others too dumb to live that way, and other species too close to ours which were in conflict for food and territory.First India then China grew into monstrosities that needed industrial methods to feed all the people they allowed without long term thought. Then Europe, and finally the rest of the world. Overpopulated, then industrialized. Wars became too non-selective or negatively selective. The development of the crowd tolerance lead to worse and worse overpopulation and with it worse and worse industrialization with its pollution and depletion. Now on the path to destruction of most of the biosphere for a very, very long period.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Do you really think the mostly ignorant and selfish masses are going to learn to live sustainably and reduce emissions enough in time to prevent catastrophic climate change leading to a mass extinction?

Unlikely but why bet to lose? My idea is to arrive at a clear place of sanity, get the word out and then after the next die-off maybe folks will opt for a cultural change. Unlikely but you do what you can do.

As for surviving a 2 deg C rise, 120,000 year ago during the previous interglacial our ancestors did just that, with the oceans being 5 to 10 meters higher than they are now, and we now have more tools. Disaster followed by enlightenment is a long shot but what else is there?

I don't buy that hunter-gatherers-fishermen were also terminally destructive. Our Native American aboriginals were living for the most part quite sustainably as attested to by the European conquerors who saw the New World as a veritable Garden of Eden compared to where they had come from.

Do you really think the mostly ignorant and selfish masses are going to learn to live sustainably and reduce emissions enough in time to prevent catastrophic climate change leading to a mass extinction?

Unlikely but why bet to lose? My idea is to arrive at a clear place of sanity, get the word out and then after the next die-off maybe folks will opt for a cultural change. Unlikely but you do what you can do.

As for surviving a 2 deg C rise, 120,000 year ago during the previous interglacial our ancestors did just that, with the oceans being 5 to 10 meters higher than they are now, and we now have more tools. Disaster followed by enlightenment is a long shot but what else is there?

I don't buy that hunter-gatherers-fishermen were also terminally destructive. Our Native American aboriginals were living for the most part quite sustainably as attested to by the European conquerors who saw the New World as a veritable Garden of Eden compared to where they had come from.

Yes, all we can do is try to initiate more change with posts, letters and talk, along with changing our own lives as we would have others do, so we lead instead of just follow. Walk the talk and talk the talk.Here is a look at 120K yrs. ago;http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-te ... 24662.htmlHere is another look at previous temps;http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... frost-meltHunter-gatherers-fishermen, if there is enough predation including diseases, would not rise in population enough to be terminally destructive, but without predators they would rise enough to destroy their ecosystem. Back then, constant fighting was self-predation, also. The first "European Conquerors" were the Solutrians from France 23K yrs ago, followed by other Solutrians or their relatives in successive waves first NE then NW all going south, and some inland, until the ice sheet corridor opened 12K YBP for more inland migrations. Their earlier break-off relatives, who became the Vikings made it to and built a settlement in Canada 999 until being absorbed by the Ojibwa to survive when no relief showed by 1002. Tough winters!Then the Spanish were the bad ones with conquest of the Americas, followed over a century later by English and Dutch, then French "conquerors". The major deaths of previous conquerors was by the Spanish (partially infested with Arab blood).Overpopulation drove migrations from prehistory. Probably with the innate curiosity of exploring this "new" world of the Americas which had no native humans. The Europeans overpopulated after the plagues and religious persecution was the cause of many English shiploads of settlers. They tended to trade and get along with the "Indians", unlike the cruel Spaniards. The population had been at a sustainable level for hunter gathers, but horses stolen by Indians changed the picture. Inevitable overpopulation drove people to explore seemingly empty areas, which actually had migrating tribes on occasion. Territorial conflict ensued, plus diseases from Spanish and other Europeans of more recent types(Celts, Saxons, Anglos), and overpopulation had become gross from post WWII vets "making up for" lost brothers too much. (my parents had two), then a second baby boom, worse, and more recently from Catholics and moslems. The whole world was over sustainable by the early 1900s.It was over sustainable for an industrial society before 1804. The industrialization of areas already overpopulated like Europe, India and China during the 1800s and 1900s started the depletion and pollution really hitting now.As an estimate, a hunter gather world could sustain(interglacial long term) 3 billion non-fighting people, 2 billion farmers/ranchers, and less than 1 billion living with industry.The population crash can now only be avoided with a 25 year moratorium, strictly enforced, on having kids. This, of course, will not happen, so the crash of mid century or before is inevitable, with a return to pre-industrial living of survivors as temperatures rise and climate fluctuation increases toward the ELE of AETM. Unless people reduce emissions worldwide 90% by 2023 or before. Momentum will carry us to near that 1.5*C tundra melt positive feedback loop scenario. Most say it will be over plus 2*C and some 3-4*C at mid century. That is well over what is needed for the methane turnover scenario of AETM.Sushi is right in that this scenario would not have happened to a hunter-gatherer or farming humanity, even though overpopulation of them would also cause eco-collapses, but not like AETM (AND it isn't as far as "the Venus Effect", so life diversity will return in millions of years).

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

According to National Pollutant Release statistics, the pulp and paper industry ranks third as the largest industrial polluter in the United States and Canada, releasing well over 100 million kg of toxic material into air, land and water each year. Furthermore, the destruction of trees to produce paper products, including the paper used for printed materials such as books, has a huge negative impact on the environment by interfering with nature's atmospheric and land-based 'ecosystem' in ways that most people never think about. It has been estimated that only 33 percent of Americans own e-readers. As an author and an avid reader, I understand the 'thrill' of holding a book and reading a novel in print; but the positive environmental impact of transitioning entirely to digital cannot be ignored. As e-readers continue to go down in price, it should become easier to eliminate paper books entirely. For the sake of Mother Earth, I hope the publishing industry and the community of readers as a whole will eventually embrace a digital revolution, such that books in paper-printed format become (entirely) obsolete.

Charles J. SchneiderAuthor of A PORTRAIT IN TIME

_________________Charles J. SchneiderPhysician and NovelistAuthor of A PORTRAIT IN TIMEhttp://charlesjschneider.com

"And this, our life, exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything." William Shakespeare

We are merely replacing one kind of destruction with another kind of destruction.

Production of computers destroys environment.....Use of computers/ e-readers requires electricity, whose production destroys more environment....And finally when computers/ e-readers are thrown away, it generates eWaste which destroys more environment.....And if they are recycled, it still destroys more environment because Recycling Industry is also a destructive industry like all other industries...

In Industrial Society thousands of industries are destroying environment every moment.

All industries are interlinked and interdependent.....Reducing environmental destruction of one industry does not make much of a difference.

If someone is being shot 100 times he cannot be saved by blocking one bullet.

If people are being stabbed repeatedly, shot repeatedly and attacked by smart bombs, depleted uranium bombs and drone attacks , they cannot be saved by stopping one kind of attack....All attacks need to be stopped.

100 years of relentless Industrial Activity has destroyed the entire planet.

Millions of other species have been decimated.....Forests have been decimated.....Fish in the oceans have been decimated.....Trillions of Farm Animals have been butchered in Industrial Slaughter Houses.....Oceans have been made acidic and warmer......There are oxygen deprived dead zones in the oceans.....Rivers, Oceans, Land and Atmosphere have been poisoned by billions of tonnes of Solid, Liquid and Gaseous Industrial Waste......The entire planet is littered with billions of tonnes of Plastic Waste, Chemical waste, Metal Waste, Gaseous Waste, eWaste and Nuclear waste......Millions of animals, birds and fish have died from ingesting plastic.....Billions of acres of agricultural land has been poisoned by millions of tonnes of Insecticides, Pesticides and Fertilizers.... Billions of acres of Fertile Soil has been killed by Cement, Concrete and Asphalt.....Weather has become extreme, irregular and unpredictable.....Wind speed has reduced by 50% in the last 50 years.....Glaciers are melting, Arctic Ice is melting.....Thousands of tonnes of Nuclear Material and Waste will keep poisoning the planet with radioactivity for the next thousands of years...

It seems like we are stuck in a dilemma. Human beings now have the ability to manage the earth system. That means not managing it short of becoming extinct is not an option. Even leaving nature alone to regrow on its own is inherently selective and ultimately serves a human management purpose.

So the question becomes what sort of management should we pursue? Simply saying human beings screw up everything means we're screwed.

The problem is agrarian society does not have built in limiting feedbacks. It naturally generates enhancing industrial developments. Present agriculture lives off fossil fuel and special technologies for manufacturing nitrogen. It needs large storage bins with electrical climate control and trains and boats for shipping. It needs containers, it needs market outlets and it needs a money system to facilitate exchange. Cabbages for a doctor exam won't do.

I'm afraid Sushi you will have to define agriculture in a more limited way.

Agrarian Society was that which existed for about 10,000 years before Industrial Revolution.

Industrialization was the process of change from an agrarian, handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacture. This process began in England in the 18th century and from there spread to other parts of the world.

In Agrarian Society there was agrarian agriculture[run with human and animal power].

In Industrial Society there is Industrial Agriculture[run with industrial machines] plus Industrial Activity for production and marketing of thousands of consumer goods and services.

The present Global and Environmental Crisis are a consequence of promotion of western lifestyle across the world.

Progress, Growth and Development (of the material kind) are / were primarily western concepts which were forced upon rest of the world.

Today the entire world is collectively involved in destruction of environment but the biggest role in this process of destruction was played by Western Civilization.

The West was the first to start Industrial Revolution and travel on the destructive path of Industrialization and Consumerism......It then forced western lifestyle on its colonies in Asia, Africa and America whose cultures it had already destroyed during the era of Colonization.

The West took the entire world on the wrong path of Industrialization, Consumerism, Growth Rate, Economy Rate and GDP that has led to destruction of most of the Biodiversity and Ecosystems.

[If any non-western country had started and promoted Industrial Activity, the consequences would have been equally disastrous and destructive for the environment].

The West did not have the foresight to know that a lifestyle based on loot, plunder and exploitation of natural resources would destroy the very things that created and sustained all life on earth for millions of years and ultimately lead to total destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The West started Industrial Revolution and promoted Materialism because it focused on "Reason"......The East had focused on "Subjective Experience" for thousands of years which led to "Spiritual Development".

The West spent its time and energy on "reason" which led to Scientific, Technological, Business and Financial thinking which has run Industrial Activity for 250 years after Industrial Revolution.

The West has got very little knowledge of Spiritual Development.....Very little concept of peaceful states of mind / peaceful subjective experience.

The Aborigines of Australia would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

Red Indians / Native Americans would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

The Africans are very unlikely to have started the Industrial Revolution.

These cultures were quite happy and content with Physical Work, Rituals and Spiritual Practices.

In India most of the population was engaged in Physical Work (agriculture) and a small percentage of population not doing Physical Work spent its time and energy on "Subjective Experience" which led to Spiritual Development.....Over a period of thousands of years they developed methods and techniques for making the mind quiet, tranquil and peaceful......The knowledge of subjective experience led to the fields of yoga, meditation and pranayama [breath control].......Material Development has destroyed the planet, If any kind of development was needed it was Spiritual Development.

Human work should fulfill the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter.....It should not turn into overwork or destructive work.....If extra time is available to people and society after basic needs have been fulfilled it should be used for Spiritual Practices, Art and Culture.

Humans have been given a brain that can make Industrial Machines, but that doesn't mean we should or we have to make Industrial Machines.

Industrial Machines have destroyed environment.

The option of stopping , not producing and using Industrial Machines was always there.

Industrial Machines should never have been invented in the first place.....Once they were created their destructive impact on environment should have alerted man and he should have stopped production and use of Industrial Machines a few years or decades after he first built them.....Continuing with Industrial Activity for 250 years after Industrial Revolution is height of insanity, It has destroyed the entire planet.

Human work / activity can be of three kinds - Physical, Mental and Subjective.

If man had continued to spend his time and energy on Physical Work or Subjective Experience , Industrial Society would not have come into existence.

Industrialization happens when you focus on "Reason".....The way to stop it is by spending your energy on Physical Work and Subjective Experience.

.

Last edited by sushilydv on Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Before the European civilization took off I believe Egypt, Mesopotamia, Northern India and China were all fairly highly developed. Forget the 18th century, what about the Great Wall and the pyramids? But to try and deal with the problem, we now have a species with the capability and the working models that naturally move us into industrial civilization. Hard to close Pandora's Box once it has been open. Maybe we can channel all those industrial tendencies into ashrams or something similar like Native American ceremonies. It doesn't seem to be that hot a ticket in either of our countries.

There is also the problem of primitives inclining to bust out. The Mongols and Vikings come to mind. The Mongols, if history serves me right, were pre-agriculture herders. They ended up setting some kind of record for conquest without much technology. Those double barralled bows and riding skills served them well.

I realize restraint will have to be a choice if we are to survive, not the least of these will be lowering the population. If anybody has a path to get us there I'm open - dope, meditation whatever.

The one and only cause of environmental destruction is Industrialization - Population is a non issue, A total non issue.

Overpopulation and Overconsumerism are consequences / by-products of Industrialization.

Moreover, It is not population that destroys environment....It is consumerism that destroys environment.

The combined population of other animal species was much greater than present human population of 7 billion.....Yet other animal species did not destroy environment for millions of years because they destroyed environment only for food.

A Hunter_Gatherer Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food......not for Industrial Activity for production of thousands of consumer goods and services.

An Agrarian Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment [compared to an Industrial Society of 7 billion]...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food, clothing and shelter.......not for Industrial Activity for production of thousands of consumer goods and services.

[By the way, A Hunter_Gatherer Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion......An Agrarian Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion]

Industrial Society has destroyed most of the biodiversity and ecosystems in just 250/ 100 years [Most of the world became heavily industrialized only in the last 100 years] because it destroyed environment for thousands of consumer goods and services in addition to food, clothing and shelter.

If Industrialization had not happened, there would be no overpopulation and no overconsumerism.

Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen together.......Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen at the same time.

It is Industrialization that has led to a population of 7 billion.....Not overbreeding.

The entire world was overbreeding before Industrialization.....The entire world is underbreeding after Industrialization.

There used to be 5 - 15 children per family all over the world before Industrialization and yet world population reached only 1 billion till 1800 AD......After Industrialization the family size reduced drastically, most families are now having 1 - 4 children and yet world population jumped from 1 billion to 7 billion in just about 200 years.

If Industrialization had not happened world population would be less than 2 billion today.

India and China have large populations today because they started with larger populations thousands of years ago, since ancient civilizations thrived in these regions.....What was the population of Europe and America 2000 years ago???.....Was it comparable with the population of India and China???? .....And once again, In the absence of Industrialization India and China would not be having large populations today.

If Industrialization had not happened, High death rate would have kept population of the world under control....Diseases caused by virus and bacteria would have kept population under control.....Feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control....Shortage of food and water would have kept population under control.....Harsh Climatic Conditions would have kept population under control - People would not have been able to live in regions that are too hot or too cold.

It is consumerism that destroys environment, Not population.

Total World Population has not increased ……It has decreased……In fact total world population has been decimated.

When we talk about population we should take into account population of all animal species on earth, not just human population.

Industrial Society has decimated millions of Animal Species……Increase in human population has coincided with decrease/ decimation of millions of animal species.... The total burden of population on this planet has not increased…..It has decreased.

The combined population of other animal species was much greater than present human population.....and we don't even need to include smaller animals in this count.....The combined population of big animals alone whose size and weight was equivalent to or greater than man was much greater than current human population of 7 billion before man decimated all the large animals.

The amount of food this animal population was eating was much greater than the food consumed by humans today.......Yet millions of animal species did not destroy environment and lived sustainably on earth for millions of years......because they destroyed environment only for food and not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

If animals had started a consumerist "Industrial Society" millions of years ago they would have destroyed all ecosystems millions of years ago.

The entire world has been trying to control human population for 50 years and these efforts should / will continue in future.....so where is the problem with population???

It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to complain about overpopulation when it itself is the cause of overpopulation......It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to make attempts to control population while promoting Consumerism, Growth Rate, Economy Rate and GDP exponentially.

If Industrialization had not happened this planet would have been in very good condition today.....There would be no overpopulation, no overconsumerism and only limited urbanization.

A Non-Industrial Society would have destroyed some ecosystems on the land [Forests] but Marine Ecology [Oceans] would have been almost 100% safe today......Forest Cover would be much greater than what it is now....Millions of species on the land and in the sea would not have been decimated and would be thriving with very healthy populations......This planet would be free of Billions of Tonnes of Metal Waste, Plastic Waste, Chemical waste, Gaseous Waste, eWaste and Nuclear Waste.....The Oceans wouldn't have become Acidic, Warmer and Oxygen Deprived because of Industrial Waste.

The one and only cause of environmental destruction is Industrialization..

The one and only cause of environmental destruction is Industrialization - Population is a non issue, A total non issue.

This negates your claims because it can be disproven at face value. If the industrial society were limited to say 1 million people world wide the population size would not be an issue and nor would the industrialzation.

Historical data shows the world population was growing for a long time prior to the industrail revolution. Thus, the impacts of population would be delayed for a time in comparison, but they would still be expected.

Quote:

Overpopulation and Overconsumerism are consequences / by-products of Industrialization.

Not supported by evidence. There are urban centers and overconsumption evidenced well prior to the industrial revolution.

Quote:

Moreover, It is not population that destroys environment....It is consumerism that destroys environment.

Again this cannot be supported as 1 person with 10 of the same item has less impact than 10 people with 1 of that item.

Quote:

The combined population of other animal species was much greater than present human population of 7 billion.....Yet other animal species did not destroy environment for millions of years because they destroyed environment only for food.

The comparison of total numbers ignore the varied ecosystems, sizes of the animals, and thus the potential impact is not correct.

Quote:

A Hunter_Gatherer Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food......not for Industrial Activity for production of thousands of consumer goods and services.

An assumption which cannot be supported by evidence. There is no data on such a large hunter/gatherer society, but it is likely that entire species could be wiped out to support one.

Quote:

An Agrarian Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment [compared to an Industrial Society of 7 billion]...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food, clothing and shelter.......not for Industrial Activity for production of thousands of consumer goods and services.

Again this is unsupported, but indications of impact on the Sahara region seem to indicate otherwise.

Quote:

[By the way, A Hunter_Gatherer Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion......An Agrarian Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion]

Possibly, but given the additional time to expand they might have been able to expand past the environmental destruction their numbers would cause.

Quote:

Industrial Society has destroyed most of the biodiversity and ecosystems in just 250/ 100 years [Most of the world became heavily industrialized only in the last 100 years] because it destroyed environment for thousands of consumer goods and services in addition to food, clothing and shelter.

The speed is documented, however the effect of other societies while being slower would have the same upper limits in theory.

Quote:

If Industrialization had not happened, there would be no overpopulation and no overconsumerism.

Maybe and maybe not. It would not have happened as quickly, but it clearly was not eliminated entirely.

Quote:

Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen together.......Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen at the same time.

No, the historical record does not support this claim.

Quote:

It is Industrialization that has led to a population of 7 billion.....Not overbreeding.

The people were created by industry?

Quote:

The entire world was overbreeding before Industrialization.....The entire world is underbreeding after Industrialization.

The definitions seem to be modified to try to make the case.

Quote:

There used to be 5 - 15 children per family all over the world before Industrialization and yet world population reached only 1 billion till 1800 AD.....

A positive growth all along.

Quote:

After Industrialization the family size reduced drastically, most families are now having 1 - 4 children and yet world population jumped from 1 billion to 7 billion in just about 200 years.

The family size 200 years did not immediately drop to the low level listed. The decline in family size was gradual and did not hit the lower levels until after the development of effective contraception. Contraception for birth control was also a product of industrialization.

Quote:

If Industrialization had not happened world population would be less than 2 billion today.

However, still showing growth and still causing a proportionally greater impact on the environment.

Quote:

If Industrialization had not happened, High death rate would have kept population of the world under control....Diseases caused by virus and bacteria would have kept population under control.....Feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control....Shortage of food and water would have kept population under control.....Harsh Climatic Conditions would have kept population under control - People would not have been able to live in regions that are too hot or too cold.

But a what level would that have been?

The premise has been presented and all connections have been modified to fit the premise, which does not supprt anything other than the intial belief was strong enough to cause such modifications.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The one and only cause of environmental destruction is Industrialization - Population is a non issue, A total non issue.

I disagree, it's chicken and egg, each one feeds on the other. The pressures of population plus the brains to creatively respond to that pressure drive industrialization one could say - better known as necessity is the mother of invention.

Quote:

Overpopulation and Overconsumerism are consequences / by-products of Industrialization.

Essentially you are employing the word "Industrialization" as a faith mantra. You are unable to define its parameters. Were the horse back riding bow and arrow shooting Mongols a technological people?

Quote:

Moreover, It is not population that destroys environment....It is consumerism that destroys environment.

That's a ridiculous comment. The more people, the more consumers for any given society.

Quote:

An Agrarian Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment [compared to an Industrial Society of 7 billion

An agrarian society would have not reached 7 billion without becoming industrial and frankly at its root agrarian-H. & G. societies were already primitive industrial societies having mastered fire, the lever principal and animal and human slavery.

Quote:

[By the way, A Hunter_Gatherer Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion......An Agrarian Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion]

Now that I think about it an agricultural society with a lower level of industrialization probably could achieve 7 billion. One only need look at India to see that. Cities and suburbs and paved roads displace a lot of cultivatable land.

Quote:

Industrial Society has destroyed most of the biodiversity and ecosystems in just 250/ 100 years

An interesting question is if industrialization had happened with less people what would have been the outcome. Maybe we wouldn't have felt the necessity for cars for instance. Walking and horses don't make the same claim on the environment and allow a more specific access.

Quote:

If Industrialization had not happened, High death rate would have kept population of the world under control....Diseases caused by virus and bacteria would have kept population under control.....Feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control

Interesting how few things are vital to good health. Good hygiene, using heat for sterilization, understanding the germ theory of passing along disease and developing anti-biotics like penicillin to cure it and innoculations to prevent it. And then of course food. I'd guess we could handle all those at a simpler level of technological development.

Quote:

Total World Population has not increased ……It has decreased……In fact total world population has been decimated.

You've got to be kidding. We shot past 7 billion not too long ago and are increasing at roughly 200,000 every day.

Quote:

When we talk about population we should take into account population of all animal species on earth, not just human population.

I agree.

Quote:

The combined population of other animal species was much greater than present human population.....and we don't even need to include smaller animals in this count.....The combined population of big animals alone whose size and weight was equivalent to or greater than man was much greater than current human population of 7 billion before man decimated all the large animals.

You left out the word wild. The domesticated population of animals is huge, particularly cattle.

Quote:

The entire world has been trying to control human population for 50 years and these efforts should / will continue in future.....so where is the problem with population???

The lack of reproductive control by women for starters.

Quote:

It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to complain about overpopulation when it itself is the cause of overpopulation......It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to make attempts to control population while promoting Consumerism, Growth Rate, Economy Rate and GDP exponentially.

Agreed, but as far as workers a modern industrial plant needs far less workers than it used to, think automobile manufacturers.

Quote:

A Non-Industrial Society would have destroyed some ecosystems on the land [Forests] but Marine Ecology [Oceans] would have been almost 100% safe today......Forest Cover would be much greater than what it is now....Millions of species on the land and in the sea would not have been decimated and would be thriving with very healthy populations......This planet would be free of Billions of Tonnes of Metal Waste, Plastic Waste, Chemical waste, Gaseous Waste, eWaste and Nuclear Waste.....The Oceans wouldn't have become Acidic, Warmer and Oxygen Deprived because of Industrial Waste.

All good points but we have come to a cross-roads where human management of some sort is unavoidable. You can't unevolve us.

.Endless Discussion, Debate and Argument is a Disease and Insanity of Industrial Society that invented the Printing Press, Radio, Television, Telephone and Internet.

Billions of Pages of Discussion, Debate and Argument is another Harmful Waste produced by Industrial Society which has generated billions of Tonnes of Metal Waste, Plastic Waste, Chemical Waste, Gaseous Waste and eWaste.

Discussion cannot save environment.

Animal Species and Hunter_Gatherer Society did not save environment for millions of years through discussion......They did not even have a language for discussing environmental issues.

Billions of pages discussion is making industrial society more and more insane, day by day, moment by moment...

Pre-Industrial society only destroyed some parts of land.

Industrial Society has destroyed the land, the oceans and the sky.

There is no way any pre-industrial society could have taken down the entire planet as has been done by Industrial Society.